UPDATE: False Flag is Starting 226

I warned that the security services will turn to false flag events to discredit the SNP. I said this in my talk to Edinburgh SNP Club on 6 March, and repeated it on this blog last week. Well, it is starting.


The reporting specifically blames nationalists. There is something delightfully old fashioned about MI5. Is spraying Q for Quisling not rather an obscure reference to today’s generation?

[UPDATE: I had not taken on board that the racist comments made allegedly by an unidentified SNP supporter to Faisal Islam of Sky News occurred in the same town on the same day. That indicates to me a coordinated security service plan was in progress, and gives some idea how they are operating, probably in a mobile team. That two such improbable and unusual “nationalist outrages” should occur the same day and the same place confounds belief.]

A sweeping SNP victory on May 7 is considered enough of a threat to the United Kingdom for the security services to use up some assets. Long term sleepers within the SNP will now be activated, so expect to find one or two such events traced to apparent bona fide SNP members.

More importantly, a major thrust will be agent provocateur activity. Security service agents within the SNP will be trying to initiate and to egg on (yes, that is a deliberate and relevant Jim Murphy reference, think about it) impressionable members to vandalism or violence. Be very, very wary of such people and do not be tempted.

There are, 100% for certain, MI5 agents online posing as “cybernats” who will be quoted in the media saying outlandishly unpleasant and threatening things. We will also see more incidents like the Murphy eggs or the complete set-up of the “mob” jostling Miliband in the St James Centre, which by chance I witnessed.

The ridiculous “violent nationalist” meme worked well for the unionists in the referendum campaign, and influenced some older voters who trust the BBC and corporate media. So they will play it again for all it is worth. The worry is of course that some manufactured incident will go wrong and somebody will get hurt. The still bigger worry is that, as the security services get increasingly desperate as polling day approaches, they will manufacture a false flag incident in which people deliberately get hurt.

The best defence against that is for ordinary people to be wise to how the real world works. Social media is key. Tweet, facebook, blog, instagram or whatever else you can do to spread this.

Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

226 thoughts on “UPDATE: False Flag is Starting

1 2 3 4 5 6 8
  • Kempe

    ” Those who mock the possibility of secret service involvement are naive or disingenuous. ”

    Not as naive as anyone who won’t accept the possibility that there are some MacOiks about, nationalists or not, who might be responsible.

    I see Craig’s false flag theory has won him support from David Icke’s band of loons. The final nail in the coffin of anyone’s credibility.


  • James 81

    bloody hell I blame those pesky Martians, nothing better to do but wind up UK citizens and let the blame fall at the door of bawbags like this lot.

  • vinyl_countdown

    Kempe: Not everyone on there is a loon – there is a wide range of opinions! One person posted the article last night and it’s had 200 views and not one reply! I regularly read the Icke forum and am still taken aback by Craig’s article. This place looks more loony to me this morning.

  • fred

    “Not even the darkest of the dark arts employed by the secret service, could distract from the stupidity of the tactical voting message of “Labour voter, vote Tory to block the SNP, because we know the SNP secretly want the Tories to win””

    You don’t understand how tactical voting works. Nobody votes for a party, they are voting against the SNP. It doesn’t matter what party you vote for so long as you vote for the candidate who has best chance of beating the SNP, that is the non SNP candidate highest in the polls.

    This is a voting wheel showing which party to vote for if you don’t want never ending referendums till they get what they want.


  • Gordone

    Oh no it’s the big bad security services, forget all the stuff world wide that their busy with just send them to Aberdeen to spray a bit of paint. These Nationslist / Socislists are pure crack pots or at least crack users to honestly believe this nonsense and the author is defo some form of Brain fried fool

  • Airdrieonian

    So you’re one of the looney SNPouters?
    Should have guessed at that. Narrow minded “blood and soil” BritNat.
    I shall laugh when it all goes wrong in a months time.

  • G H Graham

    I often wonder how many of those provocateurs, encouraged by agents of the secretive British security services, sniff glue?

  • Herbie

    “Oh no it’s the big bad security services, forget all the stuff world wide that their busy with”

    What are MI5 busy with world wide?

  • Tom Platt

    From the point of view of more government powers being re-claimed by Scotland from Wastemonster, the way in which Craig Murray did not satisfy the SNP criteria for selection as candidate for MP is turning out to be a blessing in the initial guise of a set-back. I was as disappointed as most would have been when the news came through but I have to recognise that working to become elected might have left less time for writing important articles like this, from his valuable and unusual perspective. I trust that the SNP have long memories and other opportunities of helping the cause will be presented.

  • Habbabkuk (la vita è bella)

    The more I read the comments on this blog, the more convinced I am that many of the commenting “dissidents” are on here bec

  • Habbabkuk (la vita è bella)

    because they’re lonely or simply having a lark.

    PS- Would I be more accepted on here if I were to claim that my rogue finger is really sabotage by the secret services?

  • Hollie greig justice

    As, sadly, we’re joined in comments by the idiot-wind from Hollie Greig Hoax attempting to spread a particularly stupid lie with respect to Salmond, that particular piece of dishonesty is debunked here…

    So Hollie Greig is a Hoax now MAtt eh?

    And the Firm are wrong tae eh

    You sound desperate fae the man that ALLOWS nae comment Your problem, is that you belive your own press reports 🙂

  • Hollie greig justice

    By the way ALEC Salmond wasnt asked to interfere in Hollies case , which despite what our resident SNP fan says he could hiv done, all he was asked was when he was made aware about the Hollie case.

    Rather than answer that simple question he chose to breach the law.

    Why do that ?

  • Hollie greig justice

    MP challenges Scottish Government over lack of prosecutions in Hollie Greig case

    Share on facebookShare on twitterShare on emailShare on pinterest_shareMore Sharing Services
    Conservative MP David Ruffley has written to the Scottish Government to ask why no prosecutions were raised after allegations of ritualised sexual abuse were made by the family of Hollie Greig.

    Hollie Greig received the sum of £13,500 from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority in 2009. No charges were ever brought in respect of the alleged abuse, although Greig, who has Down’s syndrome, was described by Detective Inspector Iain Allen of Grampian Police as “a truthful witness to the best of her ability and an entirely innocent victim.”

    In correspondence relating to the “appalling” case, Ruffley says he has written to Scottish Ministers to ask why no charges were ever brought if “compensation has already been conceded”.

    “The case of Hollie Greig is appalling. Justice matters are devolved in Scottish Parliament, and are a matter for the Crown Office and the Procurator Fiscal Service. It seems that the Crown Office has concluded that there is insufficient evidence to bring proceedings. But why then has Hollie received compensation from the Criminal Injurles Compensation Authority?” Ruffley said.

    “I have, therefore, written to Ministers asking why there is no prosecution if compensation has already been conceded. The fact that someone has learning difficulties does not mean that their evidence should be disregarded.”

    A Freedom of Information request is awaiting response from the Information Commissioner into whether outgoing Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini or taxpayers funded a series of legal actions against sectors of the media that had reported on the Hollie Greig case.

  • David Agnew

    @Fred – I know exactly how tactical voting works. But what is being proposed is not tactical voting. As a political party that has fed off anti-tory sentiment in Scotland for the last 40 years, trying to get Tories elected, while at the same time screeching from the rafters that the SNP is secretly wanting the Tories to win is not tactical, its a suicide note.

    Scottish labour is doing one of two things here. The first, is an admission that they cannot win and are trying to get people to lend their vote to another party. Lastly the parties who are to gain, are the parties that labour is standing against nationally. Basically they are pissing in the well of public debate were everyone can see them.

    For the above to be even feasible and not blow up in labours face, would require these parties to be politically so close in policy direction that voters don’t care who wins in the end as they are all the same. Thats not how this works. People do vote for different parties because they are meant to be different and offering different reasons to the electorate to trust them in Government.

    What you don’t do, what you never do, is to smear a party; any party, as being in league with the conservatives – then when that’s not working, ask your voters to vote with for the conservatives while standing against them elsewhere in the country. Asking a staunch life long labour voter to suddenly switch to a party they dislike intensely, because they are expected to hate the SNP even more so, because the SNP secretly want that party they dislike so much to win…at some point Fred the penny has to drop that is cartoonishly stupid. They won’t vote Tory, they’ll never vote Tory and they dislike the lib-dems for propping them up. Its unlikely they’ll switch to the SNP. They might switch to the Greens but more likely they’ll stay at home on principle and it is labour who is going to sitting at the back of the bus like billy no mates.

  • Hollie greig justice

    before MAtt attacks the man again
    Scottish Law Reporter
    Reporting on news & issues of Justice, Law & Politics, from Scotland.

    ‘The Firm’ censored, now apologise over Lord Advocate ‘allegations’ in Hollie Greig abuse scandal as Police investigate Aberdeen Paedophile ring
    Anne & Hollie GreigVictims of abuse : Hollie Greig and her mother, Anne. LEGAL THREATS against newspapers and online media over the reporting of allegations of serious & prolonged abuse dating back over a decade, made by former Aberdeen resident Hollie Greig against senior legal figures allegedly involved in a Paedophile ring based in Aberdeen, yesterday, resulted in online investigations & reports into the scandal being pulled after intervention from the most senior levels of Scotland’s legal establishment.

    Scots legal publication “The Firm” was forced to drop abuse report involving big name legal figure

    The Firm – Hollie Greig 2 CensoredThe Firm – Hollie Greig CENSORED

    The allegations, made by Down’s Syndrome sufferer Hollie Greig against several identified individuals, which, according to Aberdeen’s Press & Journal newspaper include a Sheriff & senior Police Officer, also identified a big name in Scotland’s legal establishment who is alleged to have been involved in the investigation, but who now cannot be identified for legal reasons due to a clamp placed on reporting the story by Scotland’s Crown Office.

    Our earlier coverage of the abuse story is here : Down’s syndrome victim identifies Sheriff & Police in Aberdeen Paedophile ring as Grampian Police investigate claims of historical abuse

    Grampian Police are said to have interviewed Hollie Greig during September of this year as they pursued their investigation, although it transpires from media reports still available that Hollie and her mother claim to have made a statement at Bucksburn police station in July 2000 naming a senior police officer, who has since died, and a Sheriff who is still serving on the bench.

    Kenny MacAskill as tight lipped as everJustice Secretary Kenny MacAskill refused to comment on Hollie Greig’s case. While supporters & friends of Hollie’s family have sent out pleas for help to many of Holyrood’s MSPs, including Brian Adam who, documents now reveal was involved in assisting Hollie & her mother while they lived in Aberdeen, Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill refused to make any comment on the case, instead referring media interest to Scotland’s Crown Office. When enquiries were made of the Crown Office for their reaction to the abuse allegations and certain details, the Crown Office issued a release which contained a threat of defamation proceedings against anyone who quoted two reports published on 17 November in one of Scotland’s legal publications, “The Firm” magazine.

    The Firm – Lord Advocate innocent of involvement in Hollie Greig caseToday, “The Firm” retract their allegations against the Lord Advocate. In a breaking development today, “The Firm” have printed a full retraction of their claims, apologising to Scotland’s Lord Advocate, Elish Angiolini. The Firm’s editor Steven Raeburn said:. “The firm never believed that the Lord Advocate acted in any way improperly in this matter, which is of significant public interest and was reported by us in good faith “However, there were details relating to the timeline of the decision not to prosecute the alleged abusers that were unclear, which we believed required explanation that was not immediately forthcoming from the Crown Office. “We have now been furnished with that information and accept unreservedly that she had no involvement with this matter – and apologise if she believed we were suggesting otherwise.”

    Now, one might think this sudden secrecy on alleged sex offenders and paedophiles in Scotland seems a bit out of place, considering over the past few days we have seen yesterday’s big announcement by Central Scotland Police they had collected up to 2000 email addresses in an investigation into online predators targeting children for abuse and a recent statement by Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill in the Scottish Parliament on sex offenders

    Kenny MacAskill’s statement on Sex Offenders to Parliament, so far nothing on Hollie Greig …

    Parts 2 & 3

    Posted by Legal Beagle at 1:31 pm
    Labels: Aberdeen, Elish Angiolini, Grampian Police, Hollie Greig, Kenny MacAskill, Lord Advocate, Paedophile ring, The Firm
    Anonymous said…
    Well really !

    While Angiolini worries about her non involvement we are here in 2009 talking about criminal sexual abuse to a disabled girl that no one has been charged with.
    November 19, 2009
    Anonymous said…
    “Lord Advocate “not involved, no connection, unaware” in decision not to prosecute paedophile ring 10 years ago”

    LOL ! Who is their headline writer ? The Crown Office ??
    November 19, 2009
    Anonymous said…
    So having silenced the Firm with the threat of a defamation action the Lord Advocate will now sue the alleged victim’s mother for saying the same ?
    November 19, 2009
    Anonymous said…
    Anonymous said…

    So having silenced the Firm with the threat of a defamation action the Lord Advocate will now sue the alleged victim’s mother for saying the same ?

    11:45 PM

    I’d like to see Angiolini try that although she has to do it after what’s gone on at the Firm.If not. Well draw your own conclusions everyone.
    November 20, 2009
    Hollie and Anne Greig Supporter said…
    Anonymous @ 11:45pm …

    Oh, I doubt she will have the guts to sue Anne Greig or anyone else in this despicable and very murky affair.

    We are still waiting for her to sue us for defamation, but she refuses to comment on our letters implicating her in the Hollie Greig abuse scandal.

    If she tries to, we will let you and the world know of course!


    NEWS …

    Hollie tells police she was abused by sheriff …


    Down’s syndrome victim identifies Sheriff & Police in Aberdeen Paedophile ring as Grampian Police investigate claims of historical abuse …


    ‘The Firm’ censored, now apologise over Lord Advocate ‘allegations’ in Hollie Greig abuse scandal as Police investigate Aberdeen Paedophile ring …


    StolenKids-Hollie …


    Hollie Anne Greig – Google Search …



    November 20, 2009
    Anonymous said…
    If you would like information on what you can do to help please join this facebook group:

    We have links to emailing programs, videos on teh case and MP’s addresses which will allow you to enquire about what is being done.
    We need your support!
    February 17, 2010
    Post a Comment

  • Hollie greig justice

    Elish Angiolini’s entry to Faculty of Advocates challenged due to refusal to reply to FoI request made by The Drum
    submit to reddit Share on email
    Elish Angiolini’s entry to Faculty of Advocates challenged due to refusal to reply to FoI request made by The Drum
    Elish Angiolini’s entry to Faculty of Advocates challenged due
    Ian Hamilton QC has challenged Elish Angiolini’s entry to the Faculty of Advocates; with one of the reasons given that she refused to reply to a Freedom of Information (FoI) request made by The Drum last year.

    In a letter sent to Bruce McKain, communicatons manager at the Faculty of Advocates in Edinburgh, Hamilton said about the issue: “Dame Angiolini, although holding public office as Lord Advocate, persistently refused to answer questions put to her under the Freedom of Information Act.”

    Angiolini threatened to sue The Drum’s then-sister legal magazine The Firm about the Hollie Greig case, which Angiolini said made defamatory remarks about her. The Drum put in a FoI request to find out who would foot the bill – Angiolini herself or the Crown Office – but she refused to reply.

    The Scottish Information Commissioner also refused a request by The Drum to investigate further into the matter.

    Other reasons cited by Hamilton for challenging Angiolini’s appointment include the fact she did not spend the usual nine months devilling and her shepherding of the Tommy and Gail Sheridan prosecutions.

  • Hollie greig justice

    Craig you can sniff a wee conspiracy what do YOU think?

    Did Scot Gov finance Lord Advocate Angiolini libel action against media?
    submit to reddit Share on email
    Did Scot Gov finance Lord Advocate Angiolini libel action against media?
    Did Scot Gov finance Lord Advocate Angiolini libel action against
    In the week that libel reform campaigners scored a victory in England, The Drum fails to get answers on whether the Scottish Government financed a libel action in Scotland on behalf of Lord Advocate.

    The information is exempted from disclosure, says the Crown Office, “on the basis that it would be likely to prejudice substantially the prevention and detection of crime.”

    Angiolini had threatened to sue The Drum’s sister title, legal magazine The Firm, for libel, and the Crown Office issued a statement to all Scottish news desks that a report in The Firm was potentially defamatory. As well as who paid Angiolini’s costs, The Drum also asked how much the bill was.

    The contentious article in The Firm reported criticism of the fact that nobody had been prosecuted over a case in which £13,500 was awarded by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board to Hollie Greig, a Down Syndrome child said to be the victim of a paedophile ring in Aberdeen.

    It is very unusual for a Government appointee to sue the media for defamation. And, despite being the largest employer of lawyers in Scotland, the Lord Advocate chose to use a private lawyer, Peter Watson of Levy & McRae, to represent her in the action against The Firm.

    Mr Watson also represents disgraced Glasgow City Council leader, Steven Purcell, who is now under police investigation. If evidence of criminal activity is found, the matter would be reported to Angiolini’s department, the Crown Office.
    Levy & McRae also represents several major media outlets and has links to PR firm Media House, leading some to express concerns about potential conflicts of interest.

    Richard Draycott, Editor of The Drum, said: “We felt it was a matter of real public interest to find out who was paying Elish Angiolini’s bills. Was the magazine up against the Scottish Government or Angiolini personally? If the Scottish Government did foot the bill was that appropriate? After all, any award would have been due to her personally. Is defending the reputation of Government appointees an appropriate use of public funds?

    “If she had won, she could have picked up more for damage to her reputation than the original victim did for being raped. The key issue is whether or not this sets a bad precedent. It cannot be healthy for Government officials to launch libel actions against the press, underwritten by the Government.”

    In the event the action was dropped, and a referral to the Press Complaints Commission was settled without an adjudication being made.

    Draycott added: “The Crown Office’s reluctance to answer questions from the media is not only frustrating us, but contributed to The Firm’s original dispute with the prosecution service. Early on it wanted to know exactly when Angiolini was appointed regional prosecutor for the North East of Scotland and when exactly the decision was made not to prosecute the only individual ever charged in connection with the Hollie Greig case. It was only when legal correspondence reached an advanced stage that it was confirmed she was appointed for the area on the 21st of July 2,000. The decision not to prosecute was taken on the 20th of July 2,000.”

    Angiolini continued, through Peter Watson, to threaten legal action elsewhere in relation to this matter.

    In February Levy & McRae, wrote to an English-based website – UK Column – in the name of the Lord Advocate – threatening legal action on behalf of a sheriff who had been named in the Hollie Greig allegations. In submissions to The Firm the Lord Advocate claimed to have only a passing acquaintance with this Sheriff. That is another reason The Drum wanted to know who picked up the legal bill. If Angiolini was paying personally this would seem to be at odds with this position.

    Across the UK, libel reform is on the agenda following the case of Simon Singh, who won after being sued by the British Chiropractic Association. Many observers have pointed out that the expense of defending libel actions can lead to a ‘chilling’ effect on the media as journalists may shy away from criticising those wealthy enough to launch defamation actions.

    Although the law is different North of the Border, defending a libel action in Scotland can still be ruinously expensive.
    As part of the Freedom of Information request The Drum also asked if any other media advisers had been retained by the Lord Advocate in dealing with this matter.

    Below we publish the Crown Office’s response in full. The Drum will now appeal this decision to them. If unsuccessful we will then lodge an application with the Information Commissioner.


    Thank you for your requests under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (“FOISA”) dated 24 March 2010 in which you seek the following information:

    • Confirmation of who or which organisation is paying the legal fees for Levy & McRae representing the Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini in relation to media coverage concerning the case of Hollie Greig or who has paid Levy & McRae’s legal fees?

    * Confirmation of exactly how much has been paid to the law firm of Levy & McRae to date with regard to matters concerning the Lord Advocate and Hollie Greig?

    • Confirmation whether any Counsel fees were incurred and if so who paid them or who will pay them?

    • Confirmation, in relation to various media and public relations consultants who have been advising the Lord Advocate in relations to this matter?
    • The names of all media and PR consultants who have been involved.
    • Who paid the fees?
    • Exactly how much they have been paid to date?

    • Whether Levy & McRae were acting for the Lord Advocate or Sheriff X when they contacted UK Column to warn them an interdict was in force north of the Border in relation to Sheriff X? Who has or will pay the fee in relation to this matter? How much is the fee expected to be?

    We have considered whether the information you have requested falls within certain exemptions under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002.

    We can confirm that this Department holds information which falls within the ambit of your requests, and although we have a duty to consider each one separately, we have come to the conclusion that they are closely connected which is relevant for the purposes of considering whether the information falls within any of the exemptions under the legislation.

    We consider that the information you seek is exempt in terms of Section 35(1)(a) and (b) of the FOISA. This section exempts information from disclosure on the basis that it would be likely to prejudice substantially the prevention and detection of crime [section 35(1)(a)] and the apprehension and prosecution of offenders[section 35(1)(b)]. However this section is not an absolute exemption and the Crown is also required by law to consider the public interest in the disclosure of the information requested.

    In his briefing notes on various exemptions under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act, the Scottish Information Commissioner has stated that when public authorities are considering disclosure the use of section 35(1) as with all other exemptions, must be justified on a case by case basis. The harm which would, or would be likely to, result from disclosure must be at the level of substantial prejudice.

    Examples of the types of questions that might be relevant when considering whether substantial prejudice would, or would be likely to, follow from disclosure include:

    • Would release of information revealing law enforcement techniques enable offenders to avoid detection?
    • Would release reduce the prospects of a fair trial taking place?
    • Would release affect the ability of the judiciary to function effectively and independently?

    This could mean activities in relation to a specific (anticipated) crime or wider strategies for crime reduction and detection.

    We have given careful consideration as to whether the public interest requires disclosure of the information requested. There is no simple definition of ‘public interest’ as it will depend on the particular circumstances, however it has been described as something that is ‘of serious concern or benefit to the public’, not merely of personal interest. It is therefore ‘in the interests of’ the public, i.e. it serves the interests of the public, not what the public is interested in. The types of questions that the Scottish Information Commissioner (who is responsible for administration and enforcement of the Freedom of Information regime within Scotland) suggests public authorities should ask themselves about the information when applying the public interest test include:

    • Would disclosure of the information requested enhance public scrutiny of our decision making processes and therefore our accountability?
    • Would disclosure contribute to the administration of justice and enforcement of the law or would it prejudice the prevention or detection of crime or the apprehension or prosecution of offenders?
    • Would disclosure affect the economic interests of the whole or part of the United Kingdom?
    • Would disclosure ensure the public is kept adequately informed of any danger to public health or safety, or to the environment?
    • Would disclosure contribute to a debate on a matter of public interest?
    • Would disclosure prejudice the protection of an individual’s right to privacy?

    We are satisfied in all of the circumstances that there are compelling reasons that the public interest is best served by applying the exemption under section 35(1)(a) and section 35(1)(b) in this case. We cannot provide the detailed reason for this decision because we consider that to do so would in itself disclose information which is exempt under this section, and also under section 26(c) of FOISA in light of live criminal proceedings which are now subject to the Contempt of Court Act 1981. Section 26(c) is an absolute exemption and is not subject to the public interest test.

    If you are dissatisfied with the way in which your request has been handled, you do have the right to ask us to review it. Your request should be made within 40 working days of receipt of this letter and we will reply within 20 working days of your email to [email protected].

    The review will be undertaken by staff not involved in the original decision making process. If our decision is unchanged following a review and you remain dissatisfied with this, you then have a right to make a formal complaint to the Scottish Information Commissioner.

    Yours faithfully

    FOI Enquiries
    Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service

  • ------------·´`·.¸¸.¸¸.··.¸¸Node

    Node : “Those who mock the possibility of secret service involvement are naive or disingenuous.”

    Kempe : “Not as naive as anyone who won’t accept the possibility that there are some MacOiks about, nationalists or not, who might be responsible.”

    I agree with you that the security services are not necessarily behind this incident. I said so here. Would you agree with me that it is also quite plausible that they are?

  • Republicofscotland

    Top Scottish LibDem,moves to the Highlands to try and help Danny Alexander keep his seat.

    Craig Harrow vice president of the UK Libdems,has been working flat out to try and save,Danny Alexander’s seat.

    The threat to Mr Alexander comes from the SNP,Mr Harrow,was a campaign director of Better Together.

    I hope Danny Alexander loses,his seat,the LibDems will suffer a thrashing in Scotland,a thrashing,that’s well overdue.

  • Republicofscotland

    Meanwhile Ed Miliband warning Scottish pensions will be cut.


    Miliband will hand Scots higher pension and dole payments: Promise is desperate attempt to stem exodus of supporters to SNP.


    Hang on a minute,in one hand the pensions will be cut,yet on the other pensions and welfare will rise I do wish Ed would make his mind up.

  • Republicofscotland

    Post election deal between Labour and the SNP could spell the end of the BBC in Scotland.

    Oh,how I hope so.

    Broadcasting should be on of the first things to be devolved to Scotland,no doubt John Logie Baird,would’ve been turning in his grave,at the antics of the state broadcaster and propaganda machine.


  • Matt Quinn

    You’re actually providing a very clear example here Malcolm (‘Hollie Greig Justice’) of just how one small part of the shill operation against the SNP operates. Carry on posting tripe by all means; you’re only proving my – and to some extent Craig’s – point…

    I’m not, as it happens a ‘fan of the SNP’, quite the reverse – I simply don’t like liars; especially when they’re exploiting the suffering of a sex abuse victim for cheap political ends…

    I’ll get the matter of the relationship between Salmond and Angiolini out of the way first…

    The Lord Advocate of Scotland is appointed by the Queen on the recommendation of the First Minister, with the (nominal) agreement of the Scottish Parliament. The post has traditionally and until recently been a blatantly political one; in the grant and favour of whatever political party was in power. Thus, prior to the restoration of the Scottish Parliament the appointment came directly from London. Post 1999 and up until May 2011, as Scottish Labour have never been anything other than a puppet ‘branch office’ office of the London party, it is therefore from London that the orders came in terms of who held the position…

    For those who are a little confused at this point by the fact that Scotland has had an SNP, not Labour Government since 2007, some appreciation of the history surrounding the tenure of Elish Angiolini is essential…

    She was appointed Solicitor General for Scotland on the recommendation of Labour First Minister Jack McConnell in 2001 and it was of course also McConnell who nominated Angiolini for the post of Lord Advocate in 2006. At that time it was fairly obvious that Scottish Labour were on their way out; this was therefore some eight months before his Westminster-branch office of the London Labour party was predictably relieved of its duties by the Scottish people…

    The politicised nature of the Lord Advocate’s post has always been contentious and objectionable. And Salmond had, pre-election, committed to “de-politicise” it; McConnel was very much aware of this. And so he selected a particularly contentious Lord Advocate knowng full-well what an effective plant she would be for the first few years of SNP tenure.

    True to his word, Salmond did de-politicise the post. For instance, from 1999 until 2007, the Lord Advocate attended the weekly Scottish Cabinet meetings – he ended that practice, and a few others!

    Salmond was left with a political problem in the shape of Angiolini though.

    To be clear the Lord Advocate is actually a Minister of the Scottish Government…. They are principal legal adviser to the Scottish Government and have influence upon it. But decisions by them about criminal prosecutions and the investigation of deaths are taken independently of any other person. Essentially the Lord Advocate has a fiefdom in the shape of control over the Scottish Justice system. They are an unelected person sat at the heart of government. And they are realistically answerable to no-one in terms of the practical administration of the law in Scotland.

    Those who imagine the First Minister or even the Justice Secretary have command and control over the Lord Advocate are sadly mistaken… Those who promote this myth really are deeply dishonest – or pitifully stupid.

    Why did Salmond not sack Angiolini you may very well ask? Politics!

    The (some might argue; I most certainly would!) sock-puppet Lord Advocate of a sock-puppet Labour party in opposition could not be seen as a good fit for the SNP government. But of course having officially de-politicised the post it would have opened the incoming SNP government to charges of hypocrisy to oust the incumbent Lord Advocate on the basis of her political affiliation. Further, politically insensitive too since she was the first ‘working class’ woman in post and had been there for such a short length of time!

    Certainly, Salmond was stuck with Angiolini, not enamoured of her. And if there’s a smoking gun here it’s pointed straight down at his foot!

    I’ll turn next Malcolm to this lie you and a few others keep promoting that Alex Salmond ‘hid’ material relevant to the Hollie Greig case and is in some way embroiled in your imagined ‘cover up’ of it…

    The fact is as confirmed by the Scottish Government in their recent letter to Scott Pattinson… [quote] “The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) is the sole public prosecution body in Scotland, responsible for the investigation and prosecution of criminal offences in the public interest. The Lord Advocate and the Solicitor General are responsible for taking decisions and directing the police in relation to criminal cases. The First Minister cannot take any action in relation to specific allegations of criminal conduct. No other member of the Scottish Government is able to take any action either.” [/quote]

    So – legally -Alex Salmond was never really in a position to so much as comment on the Hollie Greig case, and both you and Robert Green ( and the incompetents at ‘The Firm’) damn-well know this…

    The fact is that On the 20th of June 2009 Robert Green emailed the First Minister’s office ‘raising his concerns about the Hollie Greig case. Green’s enquiry was simply passed straight to the Crown Office (COPFS) which replied to him on the 23rd of July 2009…

    No record was kept of that email being forwarded; it’s likely to have been done by a very junior clerk – and there is almost no chance that Salmond, personally, would ever have seen Green’s email let alone been aware of it…

    As can be verified by the documents here:


    Green then commenced a campaign of letter-writing that eventually saw him placed on the ‘vexatious writers’ list… Although it was badly phrased, he was made quite aware of this in the letter he received from John Logue, the head of Policy at the COPFS November 17th 2009… Its closing sentences are quite clear.

    In early 2011 – despite having been already given answers by the COPFS – he approached the First Minister’s office yet again. It appears that – finding his name on the vexatious writer’s list – clerical staff at the Scottish Government simply ignored him… He wrote again a few more times and was ignored a few more times. This eventually lead to Green complaining to the Scottish Information Commissioner which issued a decision in relation to a breach of the [quote] “technical requirements of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002”…


    And by “technical requirements” it’s been explained to me that the 2009 letter from the COPFS should have been a little more explicit in explaining to Green that he was also – with respect to this matter – on the ‘vexatious writer’s’ list with the Scottish Government generally.

    The Information Commissioner therefore ordered the Scottish Government to respond, which they did, on July the 8th 2011 – and this particular fact has been recently checked with the information commissioner…

    And it’s at this point Green’s real lies start…

    As recently as January 2014 Robert Green was writing to people claiming that “Mr Salmond did not respond to the information commissioners for information over his conduct over the Hollie Greig case” – please see the letter (included in this post) to Neil Bailey at the SNP constituency office in Inverurie for an example in written evidence of this…


    But, not only does the information commissioner conform that this is untrue, it emerges that Green had not only received the Scottish Government’s response, but he actually went back to the Information commissioner in 2011 to complain about it!
    Proof of this dishonesty can be found here…


    And there is further proof of Robert Green’s duplicity in his attempts to misrepresent another letter that he solicited in May 2014 – which contained very limited information – as ‘proof’ of the FM’s office having ‘disobeyed’ the Scottish Information Commissioner…

    The plain truth of this matter is that it’s something the First Minister was never in a position to influence in any way… That’s why his office never really handled Green’s representations, but passed them straight on to the Crown Office… And it’s completely irrelevant what Alex Salmond ‘became aware’ of the Hollie Greig case – Legally; he could not then and cannot now directly comment on it…

    The plain truth of this matter is that Robert Green – and others – have lied and misrepresented events to paint the picture that Salmond was involved in the ‘cover up’ of a child abuse case… “Scotland’s shame” is that two-bit political shills are happy to ‘utilise’ the undoubted suffering of this poor vulnerable child for their own tawdry political ends.

  • fred

    So you’re one of the looney SNPouters?
    Should have guessed at that. Narrow minded “blood and soil” BritNat.
    I shall laugh when it all goes wrong in a months time.”

    Fuck off and die retard.

  • fred

    ” I know exactly how tactical voting works. But what is being proposed is not tactical voting. As a political party that has fed off anti-tory sentiment in Scotland for the last 40 years, trying to get Tories elected, while at the same time screeching from the rafters that the SNP is secretly wanting the Tories to win is not tactical, its a suicide note.”

    It isn’t intended to help any party, it’s intended to hinder the SNP. People are putting party politics behind them for the good of their party. Like we did in the war. The aim is just to prevent SNP getting seats not to help any other party get seats.

    All the other parties have the well being of Scotland and the rest of the UK in mind. The SNP want to cause trouble and would happily wreck the UK, as they did in 79, if they thought they could get independence.

  • fred

    That should read “for the good of their country” not “for the good of their party”

  • Republicofscotland

    All the other parties have the well being of Scotland and the rest of the UK in mind. The SNP want to cause trouble and would happily wreck the UK, as they did in 79, if they thought they could get independence.

    What other parties?

    They’re just extensions of their Westminster masters,no the branch offices of Libdems Labour and the Tories,can’t promise anything without first consulting their betters at Westminster.

    Of course this makes the likes of Ruth Davidson,Willie Rennie and Jim Murphy (who can’t even debate in Holyrood yet) nothing more than mere puppets.

    The SNP aren’t trouble makers,it’s Westminster that,helps start illegal wars it’s Westminster that invaded Iraq and Afghanistan,on the orders of the Americans.

    Scotland has a parliament we don’t need another 500 miles away,giving the orders.

1 2 3 4 5 6 8

Comments are closed.